Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
nuclear power?
holy shit - whoever let this get through should be strung up by their toenails.
"Environmentalists say the process amounts to a "hidden subsidy" to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat.
Under the Fisheries Act, it's illegal to put harmful substances into fish-bearing waters. But, under a little-known subsection known as Schedule Two of the mining effluent regulations, federal bureaucrats can redefine lakes as "tailings impoundment areas."
That's electronics, won't help us with Energy.
photo-voltaic cells = electronics
inverters = electronics (you need an inverter to convert the DC a solar cell makes into AC)
so - better electronics = better solar = more energy
^
Production:
As PV cells get thinner they should get more efficient.
Windmills are much more efficient than they were 20 years ago, they are also more reliable.
Storage:
Battery technology has a long way to go before it's reached it's peak and they are making strides every year.
Use:
Cheap lighter materials like nano-paper will make our cars lighter and more efficient (takes less energy to move, electric or gas).
I was thinking today about what could have been done with the trillions of $$ the US
has spent on the Iraq war like:
1)Covering every building in the US with PV panels.
2)Putting one or more windmills on every high rise in the US (lots of wind up
there).
3)Giving huge tax credits for converting your car to electric (it's doable now,
my P/T guy is doing it).
4)Implement a car storage battery standard and build the infrastructure for the
battery changing stations all around the US.
5)Create massive wind and solar farms around the US.
6)Outlaw incandescent lights.
I'm pretty sure all this would have been cheaper. They could still have stomped
all over our rights by "just doing it" without asking.
Argh!
.
.
.
.
"i surf because, i"m always a better person when i come in"-Andy Irons
.
.
.
i think this pretty much sums it up:
"The problem is simple to state, but very hard to solve: How can you build a device which will successfully contain something for millions of years, when the thing you wish to contain can destroy any container you build to contain it? Radioactive decays destroy steel, diamond, gold, glass, every alloy known or conceived by physicists and chemists, and - of course - radioactive decays destroy all biological systems."
Which link did that come from? In any case, this will affect thousands of generations after us, I'm sure they will be impressed by the logic of today's pro-nuclear crowd as they try to keep track of and maintain all storage facilities ever created.
As a random guess it should be possible to reduce our energy consumption to a fraction (25%? 10%?) of today by eliminating mindless waste and making some smart choices and still lead comfortable lives, there just isn't any incentive to do so today. Increase gas to $5 or $10 per liter and watch people adjust their behaviour in a hurry.
As a random guess it should be possible to reduce our energy consumption to a fraction (25%? 10%?) of today by eliminating mindless waste and making some smart choices and still lead comfortable lives, there just isn't any incentive to do so today. Increase gas to $5 or $10 per liter and watch people adjust their behaviour in a hurry.
bingo!
.
.
.
.
"i surf because, i"m always a better person when i come in"-Andy Irons
.
.
.
Which link did that come from? In any case, this will affect thousands of generations after us, I'm sure they will be impressed by the logic of today's pro-nuclear crowd as they try to keep track of and maintain all storage facilities ever created.
from tungsten's link in the post above mine. you should read the whole article - it's pretty nuts.
stuff like this gets me really depressed - we're destroying the planet, maybe they should just nuke everyone and start over.
How many of you anti-nuclear types…
…know what the various types of radiation are and which are dangerous under what circumstaces?
…can describe what a half-life is?
…know the practical difference between something with a short half-life and a long half-life?
…know what radioactive elements are in the last bananna you ate?
…know whether a coal based electricity generating plant or a nuclear plant give off higher levels of radiation?
…have any idea what a 'normal' level of radiation exposure is?
…have any idea what a breeder reactor is, and why they are cool?
the teh
As a random guess it should be possible to reduce our energy consumption to a fraction (25%? 10%?) of today by eliminating mindless waste and making some smart choices and still lead comfortable lives, there just isn't any incentive to do so today. Increase gas to $5 or $10 per liter and watch people adjust their behaviour in a hurry.
As the economies of the poor but populated countries of the world continue to develop, even extreme conservation ain't going to get us to a place where we don't need a lot more energy.
the teh
As the economies of the poor but populated countries of the world continue to develop, even extreme conservation ain't going to get us to a place where we don't need a lot more energy.
That economic development is largely enabled by cheap energy, but what if energy become unaffordable, or simply isn't available? The development will just have to move in a more energy-efficient direction (or it becomes necessary take the energy from someone else by force). I would still claim a lot of energy is wasted globally for just minor increases in convenience and material status.
As the economies of the poor but populated countries of the world continue to develop, even extreme conservation ain't going to get us to a place where we don't need a lot more energy.
In fact - developing economies are the biggest opportunity for inovative power supply and "off-grid" utilities solutions. There are no "grids" in most of Africa and east asia. So - what kind of solutions do these places come up with? How about cell phones and wireless - much cheaper to implement than traditional "wired" phone and data services which is why, in places like Bangladesh, cell-phones are pretty much the only way to communicate.
The same possibility exists (and is being exploited) for power and other utilities. If you are starting from scratch, decentralized, non-grid solutions are much cheaper to implement and maintain than the Western - centralized over-regulated systems we have. This is largely a result of modern technology enabling this possibility.
i.e. you can now buy, off the shelf, a sewage treatment plant that spits out potable water when it is done (at pretty much any size you need). When North America and Europe were developed, this sort of thing didn't happen becaus ethe tech didn't exist. If the right - smart people were to get a do-over for North America there would be NO POWER GRID!!! think about the possibilities!! Don't listen to the man - the man is wrong!
How many of you anti-nuclear types…
…know what the various types of radiation are and which are dangerous under what circumstaces?
…can describe what a half-life is?
…know the practical difference between something with a short half-life and a long half-life?
…know what radioactive elements are in the last bananna you ate?
…know whether a coal based electricity generating plant or a nuclear plant give off higher levels of radiation?
…have any idea what a 'normal' level of radiation exposure is?
…have any idea what a breeder reactor is, and why they are cool?
OK, tell us about the breeder reactors - how much waste, and how long before it's safe? Is it a practical number, like 20 or even 100 years? Anything longer and people will simply forget where it's all stored, or something somewhere will fail - I never believe it when people claim they can build the perfect system (I build systems too).
How many of you anti-nuclear types…
…know what the various types of radiation are and which are dangerous under what circumstaces?
…can describe what a half-life is?
…know the practical difference between something with a short half-life and a long half-life?
…know what radioactive elements are in the last bananna you ate?
…know whether a coal based electricity generating plant or a nuclear plant give off higher levels of radiation?
…have any idea what a 'normal' level of radiation exposure is?
…have any idea what a breeder reactor is, and why they are cool?
If I did know the answers would that make them use less water, or figure out what to do with the waste??
This isn't a questions of nuclear vs solar vs hydro vs etc. We should be using everything we have focusing on the cleanest energy first. Like Hilbilit is saying, cover buildings with solar panel and wind turbines. There is tremendous line loss between the power source and the cities so having energy production where it is needed would have extra savings. We also still haven't gotten over the "must drive to the office" mentality and started working from home using the internet. Clearly most of us working right now could do that at least 2 or 3 days a week. How about building cargo cars for the skytrain that can derail at central delivery hubs (just made that one up now? ;) We have to get creative and try it all, reduce as much as possible, and pump massive amounts into research. There are so many small ideas that can add up to a big change.
This could be a big development in wind and hydro if proven to work. Link
"To my mind this is unexpected and new, and it
Forum jump:
